Pierce v. Wilson et al

Filing 15

ORDER adopting Report and Recommendations of Magistrate Judge Bristow Marchant; DISMISSES this action without prejudice and without issuance and service of process. Signed by Honorable Joseph F Anderson, Jr on 3/29/2016.(cwhi, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA

William J. Pierce,

C/A No. 3:15-cv-3048-JFA-BM

Plaintiff,
vs.
Alan Wilson; Dan F. Laney,

ORDER

Defendants.

I.

INTRODUCTION

William J. Pierce (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se, brings this civil action pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1983. This case was transferred to this Court from the District Court for the District of
Columbia. Plaintiff is an inmate incarcerated at the Johnson State Prison in Wrightsville,
Georgia. 1 He files this action in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. This case is subject to
summary dismissal.
In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2), D.S.C., the case
was referred to the Magistrate Judge for pretrial handling. 2 On January 27, 2016, the Magistrate
Judge issued a Report and Recommendation (“Report”) wherein he recommends that this Court
dismiss the action without prejudice and without issuance and service of process. (ECF No. 10).
Plaintiff filed an objection to the Report. (ECF No. 13). Thus, this matter is ripe for the Court’s
review.
The Court is charged with making a de novo determination of those portions of the
Report to which specific objections are made, and the Court may accept, reject, or modify, in
1

Plaintiff is apparently serving life sentences in separate murders in South Carolina and Georgia.
The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this Court. The recommendation has no presumptive
weight, and the responsibility to make a final determination remains with the Court. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S.
261 (1976).

2

whole or in part, the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, or recommit the matter to the
Magistrate Judge with instructions. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). However, a district court is only
required to conduct a de novo review of the specific portions of the Magistrate Judge’s Report to
which an objection is made. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); Carniewski v. W.
Virginia Bd. of Prob. & Parole, 974 F.2d 1330 (4th Cir. 1992). In the absence of specific
objections to portions of the Report of the Magistrate Judge, this Court is not required to give an
explanation for adopting the recommendation. See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir.
1983).
Further, a de novo review of the Magistrate Judge’s Report is unnecessary “when a party
makes general and conclusory objections that do not direct the court to a specific error in the
magistrate's proposed findings and recommendations.” Orpiano v. Johnson, 687 F.2d 44, 47 (4th
Cir. 1982). In the absence of a proper objection, the court must “‘only satisfy itself that there is
no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.” See Diamond v.
Colonial Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (internal citation omitted); see
also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 148–53 (1985).
The Report sets forth in detail the relevant facts and standards of law on this matter, and
the court incorporates those without a recitation.
II.

DISCUSSION

In his well-reasoned Report, the Magistrate Judge detailed not less than seven grounds
upon which this case should be summarily dismissed. See ECF No. 10. By contrast, in his
objection, Plaintiff makes three “objections,” none of which are even remotely related to the
Magistrate Judge’s conclusions. See ECF No. 13.

2

First, Plaintiff contends that the Magistrate Judge misidentified his trial judge. Former
South Circuit Court Judge Dan F. Laney is listed as a co-defendant in this action. For this reason,
the Magistrate Judge likely assumed Judge Laney was the trial judge. However, Plaintiff
maintains that Judge Laney was merely the judge who allegedly suppressed evidence prior to the
trial at which Judge Louis Rosen presided. See State v Pierce, 207 S.E.2d 414 (S.C. 1974).
Regardless, this minor error of fact is not a specific objections to any of the conclusions of the
Magistrate Judge.
Secondly, Plaintiff maintains that in April of 1971, a South Carolina Law Enforcement
Division investigator and the Attorney General of South Carolina granted him “full immunity.”
ECF No. 13 p. 3-4. Despite this alleged grant of immunity, Plaintiff was prosecuted two years
later for murder and sentenced to life in prison. Again, this is not a proper objection to any part
of the Magistrate Judge’s recommendations.
Finally, Plaintiff contends that at his trial a witness for the prosecution was paid $5,000
by an unidentified police officer to testify against the Plaintiff. Additionally, Plaintiff alleges that
Donald “Pee Wee” Gaskins 3 informed him that the testifying witness had seen the victim 4 in the
presence of the same unidentified police officer prior to the murder. Further, Plaintiff insinuates
the police officer may have been actually responsible for the murder. 5 Plaintiff alleges that the
use of this allegedly perjured testimony constitutes a Brady violation. Again, regardless, these
allegations are not proper objections to the Report.

3

Donald “Pee Wee” Gaskins, South Carolina’s most notorious serial killer, allegedly killed more than 100 people
during the 1960’s.
4
Margaret “Peg” Cuttino, the 12 year old daughter of then South Carolina Senator James Cuttino, Jr. of Sumter
County.
5
Plaintiff’s conviction for this murder is not without controversy. Before his execution, Gaskins himself claimed to
have been responsible for the murder, and Plaintiff’s confession is the subject of much debate.

3

Accordingly, in light of the Plaintiff’s failure to specifically object to any point of error in
the Magistrate Judge’s conclusions, this Court is satisfied there is no clear error on the face of the
Report.
III.

CONCLUSION

After a careful review of the record, of the applicable law, and of the Report and the
Objections thereto, this Court finds the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation is proper.
Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate and hereby
DISMISSES this action without prejudice and without issuance and service of process.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

March 29, 2016
Columbia, South Carolina

Joseph F. Anderson, Jr.
United States District Judge

4